Obama's post-Roberts talking points belie the cold reality that 21 new taxes, including the individual mandate, in his namesake health care law will drive all of us into the waiting arms of the Internal Revenue Service.

A column by Elizabeth MacDonald at Fox Business notes that of the 4,500 new IRS agents coming in to administer ObamaCare, "nearly 4,000" are "slated for enforcement."

...the IRS will be the agency enforcing the law, collecting these mandate penalties, as well as determining whether individuals buy "adequate" health coverage, and whether small businesses provide "affordable" coverage to workers under the new law...

For perspective, the IRS web site reports 91,380 empolyees at the end of fiscal year 2011, including 21,938 "agents" and "revenue officers." While earlier estimates of new hires were speculative, the 4,500 new agents reported by the Government Accountability Office still represents a major expansion of the agency.

MacDonald quotes the Taxpayer Advocates Office (TAO), which says all individuals, for example, must now report to the IRS:

*Insurance plan information, including who is covered under the plan and the dates of coverage;

*The costs of your family's health insurance plans;

*Whether a taxpayer had an offer of employer-sponsored health insurance; (If you turn down a job offer with employer-sponsored health care you will be subject to the tax;);

*The cost of employer-sponsored insurance;

*Whether a taxpayer received a premium tax credit; and

*Whether a taxpayer has an exemption from the individual responsibility requirement.

The MacDonald column goes through the calculations of "modified adjusted gross income," and "household income" used to determine the mandate fine, or tax, which is either a fixed amount or a percentage of income, as well as the $2,000 per employee "shared responsibility tax" for not providing "affordable" health benefits, and the $3,000 per employee "unaffordable" health insurance tax.

Just wait until all of that and more are translated into new IRS forms and schedules, publications and regulations, adding to the more than 72,500 pages already in the Federal tax rules.

The TAO also sees the added intrusions on heretofore private information leading to a need for a "heavier enforcement hand at the IRS," and to "more IRS lien and levy powers."

The TAO further notes that the IRS will need to communicate, i.e. share your personal information, with other agencies it does not now deal with, and further notes that "the federal tax code is already so complex that even the IRS makes numerous mistakes in administering it."

And speaking of mistakes, The Heartland Institute observes that widespread fraud associated with the Earned Income Tax Credit is likely to multiply with the Premium Assistance Credits under the new law, quoting one taxpayer advocate:

...fraud is simply rife throughout the system...If the fraud surrounding the Earned Income Tax Credit is any guide, it is going to be an absolute disaster with Obamacare.

While the President has emphatically said "I absolutely reject that notion" - that the mandate is a tax - and continues to contort the issue even in the wake of the Roberts finding, the IRS is ramping up its tax collection apparatus to put enforcement teeth in the law, greatly expanding its role as the administrator and enforcer for the bureaucratic state.

As Shakespeare says in Romeo and Juliet, (Act II, Scene II)

What's in a name? that which we call a rose,

By any other name would smell as sweet.

And when IRS examination and collection calls, that which we call a tax, by any other name, is still due with penalty and interest.

My reality check is that the health care mess is not about health care but power. The current regime can claim 1/6 of the income to support it. Since the mandate is now a tax, wouldn't be easier to repeal the tax and then let the mess die on the vine? We could then lay off the 16,000 IRS workers that are helping to drive up deficit and get rid of the 100,000 or so who will have to keep track of the "who did what to whom for what or didn't and why they did or did not do what to whom or what". Excuse my feeble attempt at "govermentease". It is my personal opinion that everyone should be on the mess, no exclusions. Then let's see the hallowed halls writh over that one. Personally since we, who will be forced on it, pay the bills why should we not include our hirelings?

When will people understand this is not JUST about Obama ... Wake up people we only have 2 months to the nomination!

The New World Order loves to extract taxes from the American people. It was not a coincidence that the Federal Reserve and the individual income tax came into existence at nearly the exact same time nearly 100 years ago.

During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. The following is an excerpt from a CBS News article….

"Mitt Romney’s Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney’s efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million."

As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney cut taxes, balanced the budget, & wiped out a $3 billion deficit?..and left behind a $2 billion rainy day fund. Vote for Mitt Romney in November for a better, brighter America.

Romney was and remains a "failed" one-term governor. You must be confused and thining Gary Johnson instead. Gary Johnson has twice the gubernatorial experience of Mitt Romney, and he governed in a state a little closer to the political center. He has more experience than Barack Obama did when he ran for president in 2008. Johnson was permitted to debate in one of the many Republican match-ups, and did quite well (which makes you wonder why he was only invited to one).

LOL ... it takes very little thought for you to deny the obvious doesn't it. You are part of what's wrong when it comes to electing a leader ... really.

IF RP doesn't get the nomination than vote for a winner and not another loser ...

Gary Johnson has twice the gubernatorial experience of Mitt Romney, and he governed in a state a little closer to the political center. He has more experience than Barack Obama did when he ran for president in 2008. Johnson was permitted to debate in one of the many Republican match-ups, and did quite well (which makes you wonder why he was only invited to one).

A poll by the group "We Ask America" released on June 26 in Colorado shows a neck-and-neck race between Johnson and Obama. Obama leads 46 percent to 43 percent in this Western swing state, but it is within the margin of error. That makes this Rocky Mountain state a toss-up, right? But Johnson wasn't listed in the headlines of the poll.

It's the same story with a Rasmussen Reports poll. The June survey of Colorado voters shows both candidates knotted at 45 percent in the Centennial State. Johnson isn't mentioned.

When the Public Policy Polling results from June shows Obama with a 49 percent to 42 percent lead include Johnson in the mix the results show Obama leads 47 percent to 39 percent ...

LOL ... it takes very little thought for you to deny the obvious doesn't it. You are part of what's wrong when it comes to electing a leader ... really.

IF RP doesn't get the nomination than vote for a winner and not another loser ...

Gary Johnson has twice the gubernatorial experience of Mitt Romney, and he governed in a state a little closer to the political center. He has more experience than Barack Obama did when he ran for president in 2008. Johnson was permitted to debate in one of the many Republican match-ups, and did quite well (which makes you wonder why he was only invited to one).

A poll by the group "We Ask America" released on June 26 in Colorado shows a neck-and-neck race between Johnson and Obama. Obama leads 46 percent to 43 percent in this Western swing state, but it is within the margin of error. That makes this Rocky Mountain state a toss-up, right? But Johnson wasn't listed in the headlines of the poll.

It's the same story with a Rasmussen Reports poll. The June survey of Colorado voters shows both candidates knotted at 45 percent in the Centennial State. Johnson isn't mentioned.

When the Public Policy Polling results from June shows Obama with a 49 percent to 42 percent lead include Johnson in the mix the results show Obama leads 47 percent to 39 percent in Colorado, with Johnson picking up 7 percent points.

Now PPP polls lean left the way Rasmussen leans right. But they don't lean libertarian. Johnson's strength, where he is best known, could be a factor.

No doubt in my mind at all on who I am voting for should RP not get the nomination. Romney can't beat Obama and people should wake up! All he can do is outspend him.

AZ, I think you are being unfairly harsh in your portrayal of Romney's term as governor. In only 4 years he brought the state of MA out of the largest deficit in the state's history.

Upon entering office, Romney faced a $3 billion deficit. Facing an immediate fiscal shortfall, the governor asked the state legislature for emergency powers to make "9C authority" cuts to the fiscal year 2003 budget. (Massachusetts' fiscal year Y runs from July 1 of year Y-1 to June 30 of Y.) Romney cut spending and restructured state government.

Romney, in concert with the legislature, created new fees, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created, and 57 fees were increased, some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these fees included were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs.

The state of Massachusetts raised $501 million in new income in the first year of the fee increase program, more than any other state in the nation that year (New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million).

Romney increased a state gasoline special fee, dedicated towards cleanup of ...

AZ, I think you are being unfairly harsh in your portrayal of Romney's term as governor. In only 4 years he brought the state of MA out of the largest deficit in the state's history.

Upon entering office, Romney faced a $3 billion deficit. Facing an immediate fiscal shortfall, the governor asked the state legislature for emergency powers to make "9C authority" cuts to the fiscal year 2003 budget. (Massachusetts' fiscal year Y runs from July 1 of year Y-1 to June 30 of Y.) Romney cut spending and restructured state government.

Romney, in concert with the legislature, created new fees, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created, and 57 fees were increased, some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these fees included were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs.

The state of Massachusetts raised $501 million in new income in the first year of the fee increase program, more than any other state in the nation that year (New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million).

Romney increased a state gasoline special fee, dedicated towards cleanup of contamination around underground fuel storage tanks, by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue This made for a total effective state gasoline tax of 23.5 cents per gallon, compared with the national average of 28.6 cents per gallon.

Romney also implemented a "New Market Tax Credit" and extended the "Investment Tax Credit" during 2003.

A windfall in capital gains tax revenue caused by a previously enacted capital gains tax increase reduced the deficit by $1.3 billion. Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet[16] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes".

Over his full term, over $300 million of such loopholes were closed. The loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude in the face of conservative and corporate critics, won praise from the democratic legislators as an example of political courage.

The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.[19] In response, cities and towns became more reliant on local revenue to pay for municipal services and schools. This had the effect of causing property taxes to rise by five percent, their first increase in 25 years in Massachusetts.

In 2005, Romney signed legislation allowing local commercial property taxes to be raised, which resulted in $100 million more in property taxes from local business owners.

In 2002, the state passed a capital gains tax increase that was scheduled to take effect on May 1 of that year. A taxpayers' group challenged the law in court, arguing that a tax increase must take effect at the beginning or end of a year, and in 2005 the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in their favor. The court held that the tax increase was effective beginning January 1, 2002, which effectively imposed an additional $200 million in "retroactive" state taxes on gains realized during the first four months of 2002. In response, the state legislature passed a bill moving the effective date of the tax increase to January 1, 2003.

Massachusetts finished fiscal 2004 with a $700 million surplus. Fiscal 2005 finished with a $594.4 million surplus. For fiscal 2006, the surplus was $720.9 million according to official figures.

The state's "rainy day fund", more formally known as the Stabilization Fund, was replenished through government consolidation and reform. At the close of fiscal year 2006, the fund had a $2.155 billion balance.

As a result of the fiscal turnaround, Romney repeatedly pushed the state legislature to roll back the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% (Massachusetts has a flat income tax). He also initiated a "tax-free shopping day", a property tax relief for Seniors, and a manufacturing tax credit.

And to quell the left wing claim that Romney killed jobs, when he became governor the state unemployment rate was at 5.6%. When he left it was 4.6%. It may have ranked 47th in job growth, but considering the national average was almost 6%, it's hard to improve on perfection.

I'm not trying to contradict you. I'm just trying to set the record fair and straight.

I am not being unfairly harsh ... I grew up in MA and lived there all of my life until the end of 2004 ... much of Romney's "resume" is hype and lies. If you want to learn how a "successful" two-term governor does it ... check out Gary Johnson.

Then you must know Romney was once a Democrat and still holds to much of their principles only a Democrate imposes mandatory healthcare on his constituents tells them it won't raise taxes and they penalizes you with a "fee" ... which the Supreme Court just declared in fact a raise in taxes.

I don't listen to sound bytes. And you should know me well enough by now to know that. I research first and get all the facts. And even when I don't like them, I still repsect that facts are facts.

Sorry you're so turned off against Romney. That's your right. But I've been very successful in life without you educating me. And I guess it's your right to insult my level of intelligence, though I didn't insult yours, if that makes you feel better about yourself.

Allbiz I adore you and always will ... but you are wrong plain and simple.

Bush in his way started it ... Obama pushed it forward and enacted it ... and Romney supports it ...

If the American voter does not step up to preserve our Constitution come November ... there will be no America as we know her left come 2016.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. ~ James Madison

Voting for Romney is like taking the arsenic out of the drinking water and replacing it with Strychnine